Hillary Clinton Says The Rich Are Not Paying Their "fair" Share.

[luckytxn 2,264]

FAIR TAX. Read the book

I have read it and like it very much. The problem is that the two major parties would never do it. It would mean that poor get hit with tax like all of us smucks and they would get no special deal where they can avoid paying it and thus no votes from them.

[luckytxn 2,264]

*sigh*.....

Considering that 47% of Americans paid no federal income taxes last year and many of them got more back than they put in, I think it's kind of hard to blame the rich for not paying their fair share. How is fairness defined when people who pay ZERO complain that others who do pay aren't paying enough? Or that people getting the subsidy complain that the people paying the subsidy aren't paying enough, as in the case of the people getting more money back than put in.

Income tax isn't even a wealth tax. It's a tax on getting wealthy. Somehow we've decided that people who earn a lot of money. People who have a special talent. People who went to university for a decade. These people should pay more because of their success. Why?

The Capital Gains tax rate of 15% is only for long term capital gains. The people day trading get taxed on that just as if it were regular income. But let's take the long term capital gainer. What is the effect of that person? They've decided to take money they've saved up and contribute it to companies so that those companies can expand. Buy new machinery. Hire more people. Pay higher salaries. Donate charitable gifts to the localities. All of this is good. Long term capital gains are people who've saved up for retirement. Pension funds. IRA's.

Actually the 15% rate is only for long term gains for people in the 25-35% income tax brackets. People in the 15% income tax bracket pay 0%!

If you really want to tax people on capital gains, why not just eliminate IRA's and 401k's? Would that be more fair? And would it benefit the economy and/or the creation/advancement of jobs for the poor?

To take matters to a different level, we could eliminate all personal income taxes for everybody if we went back to 1999 Federal government spending levels. The total federal budget would be the same. I don't think Hillary should have a problem with that since it was her husband that approved the budget in 1999. Of course the economy would rock on. Sales tax collections would skyrocket.

But the argument on income taxes is always how much somebody else should pay. There are very few people who think they themselves and only themselves should pay more. New Hampshire actually created a "tax me more" fund for people who didn't like that the state has no income or sales tax. They can voluntarily contribute more money to the NH government that way.

Ron Paul mentioned that to roll back the government to 2000 year levels and we could abolish the I.R.S. right away during the debates. If I remember everyone said he was a nut and could never do such a thing. So guess what? We get what we wanted.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Ron Paul mentioned that to roll back the government to 2000 year levels and we could abolish the I.R.S. right away during the debates. If I remember everyone said he was a nut and could never do such a thing. So guess what? We get what we wanted.

Ron Paul is a senile old fool. He reminds me a lot of Senator Byrd.

[Texanadian 10]

i agree with her, tax them out of their natural resource wasting 20 thousand square foot homes. do it! there should a "super" tax for the super rich. i can't control it as a tiny shareholder, but corporations are paying their executives way too much and that does effect, in the long term, the share price (tick me off). a lot make at least 10 million, but some make hundreds of millions and they aren't worth it. company founders, i find exception to them for, they do deserve a major share of the stock.

This is where the New Hampshire way of government comes in. No state income tax. No state sales tax. Moderately high property taxes. (I support this) It's much better to tax people by property tax than it is by income tax. What are you trying to do? Penalize and reduce the amount of income? Or penalize and reduce the amount of oversized overpriced houses? Property taxes are also fairer since everybody pays them and there are few ways of getting around them. I also like the idea of a once a year tax rather than a weekly/bi-weekly (income) or daily (sales) tax system.

FAIR TAX. Read the book

Although I prefer sales taxes to income taxes, I don't like the Fairtax. A 30% sales tax on top of state and local sales tax doesn't solve government spending problems. It simply shifts the tax burden from your right pocket to your left pocket. Their notion of it saving Social Security and Medicare because it comes out of one giant pie rather than a smaller separate FICA pie is sticking their head in the sand. And we simply trade one form of tax evasion and black markets for another set of tax evasion and black markets.

Ron Paul mentioned that to roll back the government to 2000 year levels and we could abolish the I.R.S. right away during the debates. If I remember everyone said he was a nut and could never do such a thing. So guess what? We get what we wanted.

I remember Obama saying we needed to trim the budget with a scalpel instead of a hatchet.... Scalpel? Heck, we need a guillotine!

[DEDixon 39]

This is where the New Hampshire way of government comes in. No state income tax. No state sales tax. Moderately high property taxes. (I support this) It's much better to tax people by property tax than it is by income tax. What are you trying to do? Penalize and reduce the amount of income? Or penalize and reduce the amount of oversized overpriced houses? Property taxes are also fairer since everybody pays them and there are few ways of getting around them. I also like the idea of a once a year tax rather than a weekly/bi-weekly (income) or daily (sales) tax system.

i don't like unreasonably sized houses. the world's natural resources are limited and these people obviously could care less about consuming natural resources - life is all about them. the waste is a disgrace. i would tax properties not only on their value, but on their size as well. families have shrunk in america yet houses have grown larger - ridiculous! it is showmanship at its worst. most of the people that build these large homes are so busy at the office, they are hardly ever at home so what is the purpose other than showmanship? they host parties for crowds of people? no excuse, for the cost of maintaining a large home for the "occasional" party, they could have the party at a hotel and it would be even more comfortable.

5000 sq foot home and less deserves a normal tax rate in my opinion. anything above 5000 sq foot and i think a natural resource sucking surtax/surcharge should be added to discourage building these homes.

****

i hate income tax. the end-of-the-year process is total BS. half of the IRS could be dissolved. i support a sales tax. but still, the super rich, the ones ripping off shareholders, i support an income tax on them.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Property taxes are a direct attack on freedom and liberty. With property taxes, you never truly own your own land/home. It's disgusting when you get down to the root of it all. If you don't pay the taxes for the land that you own, the property that you own, etc. the government can seize it..... That's a bit messed up if you asked me.

Income taxes are bullshit as well as you are trading your services for compensation. How the hell can the government take money for services rendered? That's a load of #######. You traded your time, they gave you compensation for your time. The government should have no ability to make a profit off of trade of YOUR time. It's like you're being punished for offering your skills/services.

Sales taxes/consumption taxes are the way to go... but it's hard to find a 'fair' and measurable way to impose them.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

How about we just tax political speech? Every time a politician, activist, or political wonk opens his or her or its mouth, tax the living ###### out of him or her or it.

[Texanadian 10]

i don't like unreasonably sized houses. the world's natural resources are limited and these people obviously could care less about consuming natural resources - life is all about them. the waste is a disgrace. i would tax properties not only on their value, but on their size as well. families have shrunk in america yet houses have grown larger - ridiculous! it is showmanship at its worst. most of the people that build these large homes are so busy at the office, they are hardly ever at home so what is the purpose other than showmanship? they host parties for crowds of people? no excuse, for the cost of maintaining a large home for the "occasional" party, they could have the party at a hotel and it would be even more comfortable.

5000 sq foot home and less deserves a normal tax rate in my opinion. anything above 5000 sq foot and i think a natural resource sucking surtax/surcharge should be added to discourage building these homes.

****

i hate income tax. the end-of-the-year process is total BS. half of the IRS could be dissolved. i support a sales tax. but still, the super rich, the ones ripping off shareholders, i support an income tax on them.

Nobody disputes that a 5000 sq ft house uses more resources than a 2000 sq ft house. But we're assuming equally built homes in equal climates.

A 5000 sq ft home in Florida will use less resources than a 5000 sq ft home in Maine. In fact the 5,000 sq ft home in FL will use less energy than a typical 2,000 sq ft home in Maine. Florida home in all cases will use a central air conditioner (300% efficient). In Maine, you're looking at an oil furnace (60% efficient) or a natural gas furnace (80-95% efficient).

Even if the Maine house had a heat pump, it's going to be less efficient than the Florida air conditioner. That's because the Maine home will be running defrost mode during the winter (A/C on to send the heat to outside to clear the frost and auxiliary heat at the same time, typically 100% efficient heat strips or natural gas) to keep the house warm while the defrost cycle occurs......During non defrost times, the auxillary heat will still kick on in the Maine home when the heat pump can't supply enough heat in the winter.

Contrast that to the Florida home where there is no defrost cycle nor is there any auxiliary cycle. The system runs in A/C mode at 300% efficiency all the time. Worst case in Florida is during August when the temperature hovers around 100°. You're cooling down to 75° inside. A 25° temp drop using 300% efficient equipment. In Maine, you're looking at heating from -10°F outside to 70° inside. An 80° temperature rise using 60-95% efficient equipment. Heat pumps don't even work all that well in weather less than 25-30° outside. Thus you're pretty much forced into using inefficient technologies like oil/gas/electric furnaces or radiators/baseboard heat.

Should we tax old houses higher because they have less insulation? Try heating a house built in 1940 during the winter. Single pane windows. Drafty fireplaces. I lived in a house as a kid that the insulation consisted of rolled up newspaper that had been dropped down from the tops of the walls.

When I lived near Vancouver in Canada, we heated for 7 months a year and did nothing for the other 5 months (no heat, no A/C, just open windows all summer). In south Texas, I run the air conditioner 11 months a year......I use less energy in Texas!

Larger homes are in many cases simply larger because we expect larger homes. The days of having 6 kids and a 1200 sq ft house seem antiquated today. 20 years ago a 27" TV was large TV. And a 32" TV was huge. Today a 42" TV seems small and 50" TV's are the norm. It's just what we expect.

Edited May 31, 2010 by Texanadian

[Texanadian 10]

Property taxes are a direct attack on freedom and liberty. With property taxes, you never truly own your own land/home. It's disgusting when you get down to the root of it all. If you don't pay the taxes for the land that you own, the property that you own, etc. the government can seize it..... That's a bit messed up if you asked me.

I argue that property taxes are the least intrusive and fairest of taxes.

It doesn't change if you are single/married/no kids/many kids. There is no auditing of your personal records (income tax) or paperwork for businesses to file (sales tax). It's easy to calculate. Property taxes are for protecting your land. Police, firetrucks, snow removal, street sweepers, clearing downed trees on your street. It has the least economic impact. And the least evasion of the three taxes.